Incidence of acute kidney injury and its associated risk factors in patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy surgeries at a tertiary care cancer institute - A pilot prospective observational study.

Background and Aims: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a significant postoperative complication. Multiple perioperative factors are implicated in the causation of AKI in the postoperative period in patients with oesophageal cancer. The study aimed to find out the incidence, causes and effects of AKI following oesophagectomy surgery. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in consecutive adult patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy at a tertiary cancer care hospital. Patients with preoperative chronic renal insufficiency (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dl), AKI in the past and a history of renal replacement therapy were excluded. Serum creatinine values were measured on postoperative days 1, 3, 5, the day of discharge or day 15 and on the day of first follow-up or day 28, following oesophagectomy surgery. The incidence of AKI was measured using the 'Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome' (KDIGO) criteria. Results: The incidence of AKI was 14.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9%, 20.7%] (i.e., 27/183) in patients who underwent elective oesophagectomy. AKI was associated with prolonged hospital stay [median- 13 days (interquartile range {IQR} 11-21.5) versus 9 days (IQR 8-12), P < 0.001] and increased in-hospital mortality (14.8% versus 1.3%, P 0.004, odds ratio = 13.2, 95% CI 2.3, 77.3). After multivariate analysis, age, anastomotic leak and use of vasopressors in the postoperative period were independent predictors of AKI. Conclusion: The incidence of AKI was 14.7% after elective oesophagectomy. AKI was associated with prolonged hospital stay and in-hospital mortality. Higher age, anastomotic leak and use of vasopressors in the postoperative period were independent predictors of AKI.

A single-arm prospective interventional study to assess the efficacy of continuous bronchial cuff pressure monitoring to detect the displacement of lung isolation devices in elective thoracic surgeries.

Background and Aims: During proximal or distal migration of lung isolation device (LID), the bronchial cuff would move into a wider or narrower portion of the bronchus, leading to a decrease or increase in the cuff pressure, respectively. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a study to find out the efficacy of continuous bronchial cuff pressure (BCP) monitoring for detecting the displacement of LID. Methods: A single-arm interventional study was conducted including hundred adult patients undergoing elective thoracic surgeries using a left-sided LID. BCP was monitored in a continuous manner using a pressure transducer connected to the bronchial cuff of the LID. The position of the LID was assessed using a paediatric bronchoscope. Changes in the BCP were noted when the LID was moved intentionally in the left main bronchus (part 1) and during the surgery (part 2). Bronchoscopic confirmation was performed at the end of the surgery to note any uncaptured movement of the LID (part 3). Results: During part 1 of the study, BCP consistently decreased on the proximal movement and increased on the distal movement of the LID, although the magnitude of change was not constant. During part 2 of the study, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of continuous BCP monitoring to detect the dislodgement of LIDs (n = 41) during the surgery were 97.6%, 40%, 76.9%, 88.9% and 78.7%, respectively. Conclusion: Continuous BCP monitoring is a useful and sensitive method for monitoring the position of left-sided LIDs in limited-resource settings.

A prospective randomized controlled double-blind study comparing auscultation and lung ultrasonography in the assessment of double lumen tube position in elective thoracic surgeries involving one lung ventilation at a tertiary care cancer institute.

BACKGROUND: As lung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to identify regional lung ventilation and collapse, we hypothesize that LUS can be better than auscultation in assessing lung isolation and determining double lumen tube (DLT) position. METHODS: A randomized controlled study was conducted in tertiary care cancer institute from November 2014 to December 2015, including 100 adult patients undergoing elective thoracic surgeries. Patients with tracheostomy, difficult airway and pleural-based pathologies were excluded. After anesthesia induction and DLT insertion, patients were randomized into group A (auscultation) and group B (LUS). Regional ventilation was assessed by experienced anesthesiologists using the respective method for each group. Final confirmation of DLT position with a bronchoscope was performed by a blinded anesthesiologist. Contingency tables were plotted to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for each method. RESULTS: Data from 91 patients were analyzed (group A = 47, group B = 44). Compared with auscultation, LUS had significantly higher sensitivity (94.1% vs. 73.3%, P = 0.010), PPV (57.1% vs. 35.5%, P = 0.044), NPV (93.8% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.018), accuracy (70.5% vs. 48.9%, P = 0.036) and required longer median time (161.5 vs. 114 s, P < 0.001) for assessment of DLT position. Differences in specificity (55.6% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.101) and area under curve (0.748; 95% CI: 0.604-0.893 vs. 0.554, 95% CI: 0.379-0.730; P = 0.109) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to auscultation, LUS is a superior method for assessing lung isolation and determining DLT position.

A Prospective, Non-interventional Study of Assessment and Treatment Adequacy of Pain in the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Cancer Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the most common reason for emergency department (ED) visits by the cancer patients. Treatment inconsistency and inadequacy are reported worldwide in the management of ED pain. We conducted a non-interventional observational study of 100 patients visiting ED with moderate to severe pain in a tertiary care cancer center. AIMS: The goal of this study was to describe the characteristics of pain and its treatment by oncologists in ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Management of 100 adult patients with complaints of moderate to severe pain was observed by the investigator in ED. Treatment was provided by the doctors of respective oncological services. Later, patients were interviewed by the investigator to collect data about the details of their pain and treatment adequacy. RESULTS: On arrival to ED, about 65% patients reported severe pain, however no formal pain assessment was performed and no patient received strong opioids. Poor compliance for prescribed analgesic medications was noted in a large number of patients (31%), primarily due to suboptimal pain relief and lack of awareness. Protocol based analgesic treatment was non-existent in ED. Majority of patients remained in significant pain after 30 min of analgesic administration and 24% patients could never achieve more than 50% pain relief at the time of discharge. CONCLUSION: Due to lack of formal pain assessment and laid down protocols, suboptimal pain management is commonly prevalent in ED. Use of strong opioids continues to be scarce in management of severe pain. There is a need to formulate pain management protocols for ED pain.